The Supreme Court (SC) showed restrained on Wednesday from granting the federal government’s request to prevent Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan from holding the party's upcoming long march.
A five-judge larger bench, headed biy Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial heard the case.
Commenting on the matter, the CJP said that the court "does not want to use its pen as a stick”.
However, Justice Yahya Afridi stated that while an interim order cannot be issued, a contempt notice must be issued regarding the May 25 'Azadi March'.
The CJP said that it was the party’s political strategy, and everyone had the right to protest, but not be violent or damage public property. He added that the government had the authority to take action against the violation of law.
Notice issued to Imran
The apex court issued notices to Imran Khan and his two counsels, seeking replies over the violation of the court's May 25 order wherein his party was restricted from holding its march near Peshawar Morr between the H-9 and G-9 areas of Islamabad. However, Imran and his supporters did make their way towards D-Chowk, prompting the government to summon the army for the security of the capital's Red Zone.
The bench asked the Registrar Office to provide copies of agencies’ reports and the interior ministry’s application regarding the violation of the May 25 order.
The bench observed that factual aspects of the matter needed to be ascertained.
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Chaudhary Amir Rehman referred to the available evidence to establish how Imran violated the May 25 order.
The court questioned at what time did Imran give his followers the call to reach D-Chowk. It was informed that the court's order came on May 25 at 6 pm and Imran announced the march to D Chowk at 6:50 pm and another announcement was made at 9:54 pm.
Read Imran clears IHC registrar's objections on disqualification plea
The additional attorney general (AAG) argued that the PTI had initially requested permission to stage a sit-in on the Srinagar Highway, but added that later Imran asked his followers to reach D-Chowk. This was before the court issuing orders to not march to D-Chowk.
The AAG maintained that after Imran's call, PTI leaders Shireen Mazari, Fawad Chaudhry and Sadaqat Abbasi also gave calls to reach D-Chowk. Usman Dar, Shahbaz Gill and Saifullah Niazi also did the same, he added.
He maintained that the former premier's call for reaching D-Chowk was contempt of court, adding that he moved past the allotted location and then ended his rally.
The CJP remarked that the former premier's counsels had given assurances on his behalf. Imran's statement makes it apparent that he was aware of the court's order, Justice Bandial observed. "Imran had said that the SC had asked for the blockades to be removed. The question now is what was Imran told," the CJP said, directing the former premier to appear before the cout and clarify who said what to him.
The AAG remarked that on behalf of the former premier the court was assured by his counsels Babar Awan and Faisal Chaudhry that neither will the road be blocked, nor will the march participants' move beyond the agreed point.
The chief justice questioned where were the assurances put down in writing? He stated that it would be better to seek answers from those who gave the assurances, adding that it was “pointless” to call anyone if there was nothing in written.
“There is enough material in the reports [submitted by agencies and interior ministry] to demand an answer from Imran Khan,” he said, adding that Imran will not be required to personally appear before the court even if the notice was issued.
"We don't want to make headlines, but only ensure implementation of rule of law," CJP Bandial said.
Subsquently, the court issued notices to Imran Khan and his counsels seeking a reply on the matter of contemp.
It also rejected the PTI chief’s request to issue a notice on the announcement of the PTI long march on Friday.
The court remarked that at present they will not issue contempt notices or show cause notices.
“Let Imran Khan submit a reply, only then will we decide on whether his actions constituted contempt of court or not,” it stated, adding that it wanted to hear Imran’s stance on government's allegations as well.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ